Remember me
▼ Content

Who is who on Climate-debate.com



Page 1 of 3123>
Who is who on Climate-debate.com01-11-2015 18:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I am starting this thread for new members to use as a reference source when trying to understand who they are posting with on this website. Currently, Climate-debate.com is dominated by a few trolls who's goal is to prevent meaningful discussion about climate change science by posting harassing and intimidating content in response to those who do want to discuss in an adult-like fashion.

I have also started a thread asking branner, this website's administrator, to take immediate action to save Climate-debate.com from these and other trolls who commonly plague and destroy websites like this one. It is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318

I also moderate one sub-forum here called Sharing Ideas (SI), which is a harassment free sub-forum. Unfortunately, branner allows other members to extract content from SI and post it elsewhere on Cimate-debate.com solely for the purpose of harassing the person who made the original post in SI, but doing it in a thread where they are free from the SI no-harassment guidelines. Worse yet, they are allowed to do this without the permission of the person who posted in SI.

Anyways, I appreciate any support you can give to turning this website around into a forum that is for adults and free of trolls.

In the meantime, I hope this thread is useful.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
RE: Who is trafn?01-11-2015 18:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I am trafn, and in 2014, I wrote a book about climate change titled "Bursting the atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up" (free PDF version of its 1st edition attached below). I'm currently working its 2nd edition which I hope to publish in 2016. Over a month ago, I first came to Climate-debate.com in the hope of finding a forum to discuss climate change science in a rational, adult-like manner where I could talk about the new ideas I wanted to include in this 2nd edition.

Unfortunately, what I found was a website plagued by trolls who are intent on preventing any rational discussion of climate change science from happening. So, I've started a new thread asking the website's administration to make Climate-debate.com a troll-free zone. It's at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318

If you'd like to better understand my perspective when I post, here is a brief review of some of my science relevant background:

1. I hold a dual B.S. degree in Science Education and Psychology (Syracuse Univserity).

2. I was a volunteer research assistant in the Department of Psychology during my undergraduate studies at Syracuse University.

3. I was a paid research assistant in the Department of Chemistry during my undergraduate studies at Syracuse University.

4. I earned New York State K-12 teaching certification in physics, chemistry, biology, general science and general mathematics.

5. I've taught at the high school level, the graduate degree level, the post-graduate degree level, as well as the State medical re-licensure level.

6. I wrote a spectral-analysis technical manual for the fabric dying industry which was underwritten and distributed by both DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) and ACS (Applied Color Systems).

7. I pioneered the use of computerized academic test-banking at what, in the late 1908's, was the second largest under-graduate educational institution in the United States (Miami-Dade Community College).

8. I have created new medical procedures such as sliding-scale titration of morphine and patient compliance coding for treating people suffering from terminal illnesses.

9. I have been published in peer reviewed science journals including The Journal of Organic Chemistry, Medical Hypothesis, and The American Journal of Pain Management.

10. I have written two books on AIDS.

11. I am an overall nice guy (did I also mention that I am humble, too?).

Granted, I may not be perfect at interpreting or applying the scientific method, but, then again, who is.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Attached file:
burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014_7.pdf
RE: Who is who on Climate-debate.com - who is IBdaMann?01-11-2015 19:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Who is IBdaMann?

I am trafn, and I have been here posting on Climate-debate.com for many weeks now. I started this thread as a resource for new members so that they will have a better understanding of what to expect when they interact with other members here. To that end, I will give you my experienced impression of IBdaMann.

IBdaMann is a troll who is trying to prevent meaningful, adult-like discussion of climate change science from happening here on Climate-debate.com. He does so by using the following tactics:

1. When you first post here, he will respond in an inquisitive, seemingly friendly manner that is designed to engage you in further conversation.

2. His follow-up posts are dominated by repeatedly asking others to "define" what they are talking about, and when they do, he merely requests more definitions. He does this so as to create a state of confusion in the conversation and, thereby, he blocks meaningful discussion.

3. He likes to demand an impossible level of proof, commonly by citing Karl Poopers "Falsifiable Models,'' as to the existence of climate change science. Since this is still a relatively new field of study less than 50 years old, there is not enough data yet to provide such global, big-picture proof. Yet, he demands such proof only to obstruct meaningful discussion.

4. When people try to reason with him, he repeatedly insults them as either being religious-based in their ideas, Marxists, or he uses is favorite accusation and calls them a "warmazombie." If you'd like to get an idea of how often he does this, do a search on the word "warmazombie" (without the quotes, of course).

5. He likes to quote faith-based individuals as if they were recognized authorities within the scientific community. Most recently, he did this in two threads where he quoted Cliff Harris:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/understanding-albedo-d6-e781.php#post_4015

- and -

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/is-the-gulf-stream-slowing-down-d11-e725.php#post_2691

If you enjoy interacting with a troll, IBdaMann is probably the most experienced and most challenging troll currently posting on Climate-debate.com.

If you do not enjoy interacting with a troll, I strongly advise against responding to him, and that you support my initiative to ban trolls from this website which is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 01-11-2015 19:38
RE: Who is who on Climate-debate.com - who is Into the Night?01-11-2015 19:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Who is Into the Night?

I am trafn, and I have been here posting on Climate-debate.com for many weeks now. I started this thread as a resource for new members so that they will have a better understanding of what to expect when they interact with other members here. To that end, I will give you my experienced impression of Into the Night.

1. Just like IBdaMann, when you first post here, Into the Night will respond in an inquisitive, seemingly friendly manner that is designed to engage you in further conversation.

2. His follow-up posts are dominated by repeatedly asking others to "provide data" to back up what they are talking about, and when they do, he repeatedly claims that your data is worthless and requests that you supply him with more data. He has created a thread just for this purpose called The Data Mine. He does this so as to create a state of confusion in the conversation and, thereby, he blocks meaningful discussion.

3. He likes to claim that nearly every respected authority in the scientific community presents only "fudged" data with respect to climate change science. While there have been cases where this has happened in every field of science, he tends to globally apply this accusation to any data you provide him (example here).

4. He repeatedly accuses people of committing bulverism whenever another troll is under attack for quoting a religious-based website like
https://overpopulationisamyth.com as if it were a science-based one (example here).

If you enjoy interacting with a troll, Into the Night is probably one of the most experienced and most challenging trolls currently posting on Climate-debate.com, only second to IBdaMann.

If you do not enjoy interacting with a troll, I strongly advise against responding to him, and that you support my initiative to ban trolls from this website which is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 01-11-2015 19:42
RE: Who is who on Climate-debate.com - who is Tim the plumber?01-11-2015 20:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Who is Tim the plumber?

I am trafn, and I have been here posting on Climate-debate.com for many weeks now. I started this thread as a resource for new members so that they will have a better understanding of what to expect when they interact with other members here. To that end, I will give you my experienced impression of Tim the plumber.

1. Just like IBdaMann and Into the Night, when you first post here, Tim the plumber will respond in an inquisitive, seemingly friendly manner that is designed to engage you in further conversation.

2. If you do not agree with his point of view, then in his follow-up posts he will accuse you of wanting to murder millions of people through supporting things like food-based bio-fuel. Here was my most recent response after he did this to me (click here).

3. He repeatedly cites the faith-based website https://overpopulationisamyth.com as a justification for him claiming that anyone who believes in M2C2 is murdering millions of people.

If you enjoy interacting with a troll, Tim the plumber is probably not going to be much of a challenge, as he is a self-admitted dyslexic who has difficulty posting in a contiguously coherent manner.

If you do not enjoy interacting with a troll, I strongly advise against responding to him, and that you support my initiative to ban trolls from this website which is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
04-11-2015 22:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1339)
Wow!

I have never had a whole thread as a fan club thing before. Shame it's not just for me!

Whilst you are here you might like to help out trafn. Please tell me if you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the scale of the problem. If you do I suggest you start a new thread about it.
05-11-2015 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wow!

I have never had a whole thread as a fan club thing before. Shame it's not just for me!

Whilst you are here you might like to help out trafn. Please tell me if you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the scale of the problem. If you do I suggest you start a new thread about it.


Quite all right. I certainly don't mind our infamy being shared like this. I am honored to be in such company.
05-11-2015 05:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wow!

I have never had a whole thread as a fan club thing before. Shame it's not just for me!

Whilst you are here you might like to help out trafn. Please tell me if you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the scale of the problem. If you do I suggest you start a new thread about it.


Quite all right. I certainly don't mind our infamy being shared like this. I am honored to be in such company.


You know that eventually everyone is going to want their own similar profile. People will start pissing off trafn just to make the cut and get their own ranking.

On that point, I'm sorry to say but, you saw what trafn wrote, I'm #1 and you guys are just second fiddle.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: WOW! vermin infestation as far back as 201518-03-2022 00:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


trafn wrote:
I am starting this thread for new members to use as a reference source when trying to understand who they are posting with on this website. Currently, Climate-debate.com is dominated by a few trolls who's goal is to prevent meaningful discussion about climate change science by posting harassing and intimidating content in response to those who do want to discuss in an adult-like fashion.

I have also started a thread asking branner, this website's administrator, to take immediate action to save Climate-debate.com from these and other trolls who commonly plague and destroy websites like this one. It is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318

I also moderate one sub-forum here called Sharing Ideas (SI), which is a harassment free sub-forum. Unfortunately, branner allows other members to extract content from SI and post it elsewhere on Cimate-debate.com solely for the purpose of harassing the person who made the original post in SI, but doing it in a thread where they are free from the SI no-harassment guidelines. Worse yet, they are allowed to do this without the permission of the person who posted in SI.

Anyways, I appreciate any support you can give to turning this website around into a forum that is for adults and free of trolls.

In the meantime, I hope this thread is useful.
18-03-2022 02:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


trafn wrote:
I am starting this thread for new members to use as a reference source when trying to understand who they are posting with on this website. Currently, Climate-debate.com is dominated by a few trolls who's goal is to prevent meaningful discussion about climate change science by posting harassing and intimidating content in response to those who do want to discuss in an adult-like fashion.

I have also started a thread asking branner, this website's administrator, to take immediate action to save Climate-debate.com from these and other trolls who commonly plague and destroy websites like this one. It is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-is-climate-debate-com-so-messed-up-d15-e788.php#post_4318

I also moderate one sub-forum here called Sharing Ideas (SI), which is a harassment free sub-forum. Unfortunately, branner allows other members to extract content from SI and post it elsewhere on Cimate-debate.com solely for the purpose of harassing the person who made the original post in SI, but doing it in a thread where they are free from the SI no-harassment guidelines. Worse yet, they are allowed to do this without the permission of the person who posted in SI.

Anyways, I appreciate any support you can give to turning this website around into a forum that is for adults and free of trolls.

In the meantime, I hope this thread is useful.


Heh. You're wasting your breath, dude. Trafn's account was banned due to spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: website history, same two dicks18-03-2022 09:38
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
.


Heh. You're wasting your breath, dude. Trafn's account was banned due to spamming.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings newcomers,

I draw your attention to this so you will be cautious.

This website has a notorious history.

So tragic.

People wanted to discuss a matter of tremendous importance to humanity.

What they got was a place where the unsuspecting were pounced upon by a team of sadists.

As a real world scientist, it is particularly enraging that so many trolls pretend that their position has something to do with valid science.

Frankly, I hate these guys and I've only known them a few weeks.

They probably aren't going away.

If they were capable of shame, they have left a rich trail of evidence with which to shame them.
18-03-2022 11:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers,

I draw your attention to this so you will be cautious.

This website has a notorious history.

So tragic.

So you hate this website.
sealover wrote:
People wanted to discuss a matter of tremendous importance to humanity.

...such as? Sorry dude, the Church of Global Warming is not important to humanity.
sealover wrote:
What they got was a place where the unsuspecting were pounced upon by a team of sadists.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
As a real world scientist, it is particularly enraging that so many trolls pretend that their position has something to do with valid science.

You are the troll, dude. Inversion fallacy. You are trolling right now, in this post of yours.
sealover wrote:
Frankly, I hate these guys and I've only known them a few weeks.

So you do NOT know the history of the forum. You just locked yourself in yet another paradox. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
They probably aren't going away.

Valar morghulis.
sealover wrote:
If they were capable of shame, they have left a rich trail of evidence with which to shame them.

You are describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-03-2022 19:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
sea lover wrote:Greetings newcomers ... This website has a notorious history.

Be afraid, be very, very afraid.


seal over wrote:So tragic.



seal over wrote:People wanted to discuss a matter of tremendous importance to humanity.



seal over wrote:What they got was a place where the unsuspecting were pounced upon by a team of sadists.



seal over wrote:As a real world troll, I find it particularly hilarious to pretend that my position has something to do with valid science.



seal over wrote:Frank and I ate these pies and I've only known him a few weeks.

RE: this is the vampire outside the window18-03-2022 21:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Scroll up for some beautiful images.

They certainly make a useful contribution to the climate debate, don't they.

Actually, they do!

At least they do, in this particular "climate debate".

The above images are the vampire standing outside the window.

But DON'T "be afraid, very afraid".

Vampires can only come in if they are invited.

If you don't respond, the vampire can't come in.

The vampire would never dare expose himself by presenting an original argument of his own.

Every sentence could be subjected to ridicule.

The vampire needs you to respond so that YOU present an argument that could have every sentence subjected to ridicule.

He's just a pathetic thing trying to scare you if you don't invite him in.
19-03-2022 00:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
Scroll up for some beautiful images.

They certainly make a useful contribution to the climate debate, don't they.

Actually, they do!

At least they do, in this particular "climate debate".

The above images are the vampire standing outside the window.

But DON'T "be afraid, very afraid".

Vampires can only come in if they are invited.

If you don't respond, the vampire can't come in.

The vampire would never dare expose himself by presenting an original argument of his own.

Every sentence could be subjected to ridicule.

The vampire needs you to respond so that YOU present an argument that could have every sentence subjected to ridicule.

He's just a pathetic thing trying to scare you if you don't invite him in.

Into where? You seem to think there is some kind of barrier here. I can only assume you are hallucinating.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-03-2022 00:39
RE: Is it STILL fun to be a genius?19-03-2022 08:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Is it still fun to be a genius?

You cannot imagine how much I envy you.

Irony missed the mark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wow!

I have never had a whole thread as a fan club thing before. Shame it's not just for me!

Whilst you are here you might like to help out trafn. Please tell me if you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the scale of the problem. If you do I suggest you start a new thread about it.


Quite all right. I certainly don't mind our infamy being shared like this. I am honored to be in such company.


You know that eventually everyone is going to want their own similar profile. People will start pissing off trafn just to make the cut and get their own ranking.

On that point, I'm sorry to say but, you saw what trafn wrote, I'm #1 and you guys are just second fiddle.
19-03-2022 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
Is it still fun to be a genius?

You cannot imagine how much I envy you.

Irony missed the mark.

Mockery. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Who IS Who on climate-debate.com20-03-2022 00:56
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Who is who on climate-debate.com?

It was a long list at first.

A lot of well-intentioned individuals joined in good faith.

The list got a WHOLE LOT SHORTER when our two favorite trolls infested the place about 7 years ago.

They were almost all that was left of the "who is who" by the time I got here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Is it still fun to be a genius?

You cannot imagine how much I envy you.

Irony missed the mark.

Mockery. No argument presented.
20-03-2022 01:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(892)
[quote]sealover wrote:
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

I think actually a few of these individuals were banned from a political forum and found a home here. I think I do understand the basis of natural climate change. It's as ITN once told me, I can't understand the Gulf Stream if I haven't been there. And yet I have sailed it on a freighter.
At the moment, IMO the entire climate debate became politicized when Al Gore got involved. With that said, it should actually be a discussion which isn't happening. Debates are about winning an argument. And what most people who are concerned with climate change do not consider, what about sustainability or conservation? These guys hate me because they say I'm an environmentalist.
That's worse than saying climate change or we need to lower CO2. They simply don't understand what they're talking about because they were exiled from a political forum.
RE: Thank you for sharing that. Seriously!20-03-2022 01:58
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I appreciate the insight.

It never occurred to me that they were exiles.

Well, my plan is try to make the echo chamber less comfortable for them.

Thank you for sharing. Seriously.

I hope we will see you sharing more. Good stuff!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

James_ wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

I think actually a few of these individuals were banned from a political forum and found a home here. I think I do understand the basis of natural climate change. It's as ITN once told me, I can't understand the Gulf Stream if I haven't been there. And yet I have sailed it on a freighter.
At the moment, IMO the entire climate debate became politicized when Al Gore got involved. With that said, it should actually be a discussion which isn't happening. Debates are about winning an argument. And what most people who are concerned with climate change do not consider, what about sustainability or conservation? These guys hate me because they say I'm an environmentalist.
That's worse than saying climate change or we need to lower CO2. They simply don't understand what they're talking about because they were exiled from a political forum.
20-03-2022 03:59
James_
★★★☆☆
(892)
sealover wrote:
I appreciate the insight.

It never occurred to me that they were exiles.

Well, my plan is try to make the echo chamber less comfortable for them.

Thank you for sharing. Seriously.

I hope we will see you sharing more. Good stuff!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

James_ wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

I think actually a few of these individuals were banned from a political forum and found a home here. I think I do understand the basis of natural climate change. It's as ITN once told me, I can't understand the Gulf Stream if I haven't been there. And yet I have sailed it on a freighter.
At the moment, IMO the entire climate debate became politicized when Al Gore got involved. With that said, it should actually be a discussion which isn't happening. Debates are about winning an argument. And what most people who are concerned with climate change do not consider, what about sustainability or conservation? These guys hate me because they say I'm an environmentalist.
That's worse than saying climate change or we need to lower CO2. They simply don't understand what they're talking about because they were exiled from a political forum.



There are basically 2 issues. How to change a political debate into a discussion?
And many people will not want to change their political view.
The 2nd issue is the science can be complicated. There are natural variations to regional climate variations. As an example, in another 100 to 200 years, the Delaware River will probably start freezing over again like it did in the mid 1700's.
Astrophysics actually explains that or just understanding moment of inertia. Basically if you have something that weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg and rotates at 460 meters/second and orbits the Sun at 29.8 km/s, how does a shift of its mass influence those numbers?
With astrophysics then understanding the orbital velocity and the acceleration of the Sun's gravity needs to be considered. Then after this, how do aerosols influence the ozone layer? Then there's depletion of ground water, denuding forests, etc. which change refraction.
With refraction, a desert refracts light differently than a green space. Also vegetation absorbs solar radiation and converts CO2 and H2O into C6H12O6 while also creating fiber.
Basically there is no simple easy to understand answer.
Edited on 20-03-2022 04:00
RE: Holy Cow! respect for a competent scientist!20-03-2022 04:18
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
James_ wrote:
sealover wrote:
I appreciate the insight.

It never occurred to me that they were exiles.

Well, my plan is try to make the echo chamber less comfortable for them.

Thank you for sharing. Seriously.

I hope we will see you sharing more. Good stuff!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

James_ wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
It was a year ago when I first became an official member of this club, but decided not to post.

I had checked out this site a few times in the years before that.

What is impressive about this post is that the vermin infestation had already taken root as far back as 2015.

Not much has changed since those earliest years of the site.

Not even the names of the vermin

WOW!

I think actually a few of these individuals were banned from a political forum and found a home here. I think I do understand the basis of natural climate change. It's as ITN once told me, I can't understand the Gulf Stream if I haven't been there. And yet I have sailed it on a freighter.
At the moment, IMO the entire climate debate became politicized when Al Gore got involved. With that said, it should actually be a discussion which isn't happening. Debates are about winning an argument. And what most people who are concerned with climate change do not consider, what about sustainability or conservation? These guys hate me because they say I'm an environmentalist.
That's worse than saying climate change or we need to lower CO2. They simply don't understand what they're talking about because they were exiled from a political forum.



There are basically 2 issues. How to change a political debate into a discussion?
And many people will not want to change their political view.
The 2nd issue is the science can be complicated. There are natural variations to regional climate variations. As an example, in another 100 to 200 years, the Delaware River will probably start freezing over again like it did in the mid 1700's.
Astrophysics actually explains that or just understanding moment of inertia. Basically if you have something that weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg and rotates at 460 meters/second and orbits the Sun at 29.8 km/s, how does a shift of its mass influence those numbers?
With astrophysics then understanding the orbital velocity and the acceleration of the Sun's gravity needs to be considered. Then after this, how do aerosols influence the ozone layer? Then there's depletion of ground water, denuding forests, etc. which change refraction.
With refraction, a desert refracts light differently than a green space. Also vegetation absorbs solar radiation and converts CO2 and H2O into C6H12O6 while also creating fiber.
Basically there is no simple easy to understand answer.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

HOLY COW!

I am humbled.

Truth is I AM arrogant, and didn't think any of my peers were here yet.

This is MASTERFUL!

A complete clear science lesson in a single paragraph.

COVERS IT ALL!

God, man. You are GOOD at this.

And you know what else is cool about it?

Both of us know what all the buzzword gibber babble means!

The trolls will have no idea what we are talking about.

And YOU are GOOD at this.

Holy cow!

Kudos!
20-03-2022 04:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
seal over wrote:It was a long list at first.

Two people. Into the Night and myself.

seal over wrote:A lot of well-intentioned individuals joined in good faith.

The list was created as a way for trafn to advertise his hatred of those wielding science, much as you are trying to do by resurrecting this thread.

seal over wrote:The list got a WHOLE LOT SHORTER when our two favorite trolls infested the place about 7 years ago.

The list got 50% longer when Tim the Plumber was added.

seal over wrote:They were almost all that was left of the "who is who" by the time I got here.

Yes. Since the board owner, Branner, would not ban us at trafn's mere insistence, trafn added Branner to the list as well, increasing the number to four.

The list had doubled in size since its creation.

What pissed me off was that Branner ended up in the #1 position. I had earned the top slot and yet I was denied just because of trafn's lack of professionalism.

.
RE: Who cares? Who are you addressing?20-03-2022 05:17
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Who cares? Who are you addressing?

Who do you think is going to see any of your posts?

You may not be aware of it, but you are not as deeply loved as you imagine.

Or maybe you can just go to that thread where everyone loves you so much.

YOUR OWN! Dick.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:It was a long list at first.

Two people. Into the Night and myself.

seal over wrote:A lot of well-intentioned individuals joined in good faith.

The list was created as a way for trafn to advertise his hatred of those wielding science, much as you are trying to do by resurrecting this thread.

seal over wrote:The list got a WHOLE LOT SHORTER when our two favorite trolls infested the place about 7 years ago.

The list got 50% longer when Tim the Plumber was added.

seal over wrote:They were almost all that was left of the "who is who" by the time I got here.

Yes. Since the board owner, Branner, would not ban us at trafn's mere insistence, trafn added Branner to the list as well, increasing the number to four.

The list had doubled in size since its creation.

What pissed me off was that Branner ended up in the #1 position. I had earned the top slot and yet I was denied just because of trafn's lack of professionalism.

.
20-03-2022 05:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Projection, anyone?

sealover wrote:Who cares? Who are you addressing? Who do you think is going to see any of your posts? You may not be aware of it, but you are not as deeply loved as you imagine. Or maybe you can just go to that thread where everyone loves you so much. YOUR OWN! Dick.


Someone has issues.
RE: You are a "chemist", correct?20-03-2022 05:41
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
You are a "chemist", correct?

On a personal level, I find you to be a repulsive, vile, disgusting... not enough adjectives for how much I despise you.

As a real world chemist, you enrage me on a different level.

That is your scientific specialization, correct?

Did you really think you could bluff with all that BULLSHIT laughably ignorant presentation of "chemistry"?

Have you finally figured out that I really am a chemist?

Probably not, because you really are that effing stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
Projection, anyone?

sealover wrote:Who cares? Who are you addressing? Who do you think is going to see any of your posts? You may not be aware of it, but you are not as deeply loved as you imagine. Or maybe you can just go to that thread where everyone loves you so much. YOUR OWN! Dick.


Someone has issues.
20-03-2022 05:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
sealover wrote:On a personal level, I find you to be a repulsive, vile, disgusting... not enough adjectives for how much I despise you.

How about contemptible, noxious, repugnant, despicable, abhorrent, revolting,
depraved? Those are some good ones.

sealover wrote:As a real world chemist, you enrage me on a different level.

I know. I enrage your religious sensitivities. I get it. I totally get it.

sealover wrote:That is your scientific specialization, correct?

I have many. You may also consider me this board's expert on the scientific method.

sealover wrote:Did you really think you could bluff ...

Nope. I gave up bluffing decades ago. I found it unnecessary. If I am honest, I don't have to keep track of all the lies I make and I never have to pivot or shift goalposts.

My policy is to strictly be honest and to stick with math, science, logic and economics. Remember, honesty is the best policy. You should give it a try for once.

sealover wrote:Have you finally figured out that I really am a chemist?

You should actually read my posts. I have said as much. You are a chemist. You are a liar. You are a warmizombie. I stick with direct observations.
RE: i didn't read your post when you finally did20-03-2022 06:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I didn't read your post at the time you finally acknowledged this.

I stand corrected.

I had pretty much stopped reading your posts by then.

But your recent comment made me do reality check.

All the posts that I DID read when I first got here called me a LIAR about it.

Do you ever read your own posts?

They might offer some insight into why nobody likes to play with you.



















































IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:On a personal level, I find you to be a repulsive, vile, disgusting... not enough adjectives for how much I despise you.

How about contemptible, noxious, repugnant, despicable, abhorrent, revolting,
depraved? Those are some good ones.

sealover wrote:As a real world chemist, you enrage me on a different level.

I know. I enrage your religious sensitivities. I get it. I totally get it.

sealover wrote:That is your scientific specialization, correct?

I have many. You may also consider me this board's expert on the scientific method.

sealover wrote:Did you really think you could bluff ...

Nope. I gave up bluffing decades ago. I found it unnecessary. If I am honest, I don't have to keep track of all the lies I make and I never have to pivot or shift goalposts.

My policy is to strictly be honest and to stick with math, science, logic and economics. Remember, honesty is the best policy. You should give it a try for once.

sealover wrote:Have you finally figured out that I really am a chemist?

You should actually read my posts. I have said as much. You are a chemist. You are a liar. You are a warmizombie. I stick with direct observations.
20-03-2022 06:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
sealover wrote:All the posts that I DID read when I first got here called me a LIAR about it.

No, I assure you, I simply called you a liar in general.

sealover wrote:Do you ever read your own posts?

Yes, after I write them.

sealover wrote:They might offer some insight into why nobody likes to play with you.

The reason nobody likes me is that nobody likes a know-it-all. It's why I don't have any friends.


Cheers.
RE: When a member literally LIBELS another20-03-2022 07:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
When a member literally LIBELS another, is there any recourse?

"You are a liar. You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."

It is a gray area for legal action. Would only matter if anyone knew who "sealover" really is.

But shouldn't that be enough to get them banned.

It would certainly get them banned from any scientific professional association.

But they would have to be in one, before they could be kicked out.

So, that's not applicable.































IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:All the posts that I DID read when I first got here called me a LIAR about it.

No, I assure you, I simply called you a liar in general.

sealover wrote:Do you ever read your own posts?

Yes, after I write them.

sealover wrote:They might offer some insight into why nobody likes to play with you.

The reason nobody likes me is that nobody likes a know-it-all. It's why I don't have any friends.


Cheers.
20-03-2022 07:27
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Sea lover could you stop creating so many confusing threads and take your own advice and do not get involved with IBDM and ITN.I do not agree with a lot of their work also but leave it.I am only interested in the reality of AGW/CC and 3 years down the track I have zero evidence it is true.Pollution issues have been resolved.My local ocean is teeming with life in areas that were barren in the 70s-80s.Kwinana industrial area generated acid rain that would rust out tin roofs in the area till Zincalume was invented.All the industries now have scrubbers to remove sulfuric acid.Humans have a hard time giving themselves credit.It is too easy to say we ****ed it all up
20-03-2022 07:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
sealover wrote:When a member literally LIBELS another, is there any recourse?

There is no such thing as libel on an anonymous forum.

sealover wrote:It is a gray area for legal action.

Nope. It's black and white. Anonymous forum. No libel.

sealover wrote:But shouldn't that be enough to get them banned.

Shouldn't any name beginning with the letters "IB" be enough to get someone banned?
RE: Good News! didn't take long to find the answer20-03-2022 07:43
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
It didn't take so long to find the answer.

The is GOOD news for everyone except the trolls.

See you guys again in a week or so.

And hopefully never again after that.

At least the worst of you...

WOO HOO!

This will be easier than I thought.






























IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:When a member literally LIBELS another, is there any recourse?

There is no such thing as libel on an anonymous forum.

sealover wrote:It is a gray area for legal action.

Nope. It's black and white. Anonymous forum. No libel.

sealover wrote:But shouldn't that be enough to get them banned.

Shouldn't any name beginning with the letters "IB" be enough to get someone banned?
RE: she must have been the most despised member of the site.22-03-2022 05:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Ten years ago, last time I did climate debate, one of my fellow trollslayers was a serial pest tracker.

The website we were posting on had a pretty large membership.

No like SOME websites we know, but I digress.

My fellow trollslayer was a serial pest tracking specialist.

She would quickly track down the serial pest history of the newest troll.

It was hilarious how often the story was the same.

A male troll was banned from some website somewhere else. Why?

Because some particularly vindictive female, and often described by the troll as "the most despised member of the (forum)"

Indeed, they despised her so much that they kicked him out because of her.

Same damn story from so many trolls.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sea lover wrote:Greetings newcomers ... This website has a notorious history.

Be afraid, be very, very afraid.


seal over wrote:So tragic.



seal over wrote:People wanted to discuss a matter of tremendous importance to humanity.



seal over wrote:What they got was a place where the unsuspecting were pounced upon by a team of sadists.



seal over wrote:As a real world troll, I find it particularly hilarious to pretend that my position has something to do with valid science.



seal over wrote:Frank and I ate these pies and I've only known him a few weeks.

22-03-2022 06:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
Ten years ago, last time I did climate debate, one of my fellow trollslayers was a serial pest tracker.
...deleted excess...

Fiction. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-03-2022 06:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)


sealover wrote:Ten years ago, last time I did climate debate, one of my fellow trollslayers was a serial pest tracker.

Is she here posting on Climate-Debate? If not, I don't see how this is on-topic with "Who's who on Climate Debate".

If she is posting here, tell us about her.
22-03-2022 07:51
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4240)
Somehow, I get the impression it's not trolls, but that this is a non-climate cult website. All non-believers must be destroyed. There must be thousands of cult-friendly climate website. Should be easy to find a site, with the right fit, for any cult member, where they gleefully chant mantra, regurgitate the daily doom and gloom, moderated to keep out the true-seers.
22-03-2022 08:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
HarveyH55 wrote:Somehow, I get the impression it's not trolls, but that this is a non-climate cult website. All non-believers must be destroyed. There must be thousands of cult-friendly climate website. Should be easy to find a site, with the right fit, for any cult member, where they gleefully chant mantra, regurgitate the daily doom and gloom, moderated to keep out the true-seers.

Harvey, your latest posts have been insightful and well-expressed.

... but I'm not talking to you. Nope. No way. This is a debate, remember? Don't take it personally but I am going to address the audience directly. This is not meant as a slight to you, it's just that we need to maintain the integrity of the debate, and that means we can't talk.

So I'm not talking to you ... directly ... to you.

@ Audience - Harvey, your posts have been really good recently.
RE: An open letter to the moderator28-03-2022 20:55
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
An open letter to the moderator.

Dear moderator,

Please come pay a visit to your website.

Your intervention is needed.

There is a HORRIBLE new member called "sealover".

He is the worst troll ever.

He won't stop trolling his own threads!

He refuses to give the required definitions.

He forces us to call him a "liar" and confront him with our knowledge of his participation in nefarious communist conspiracies.

He post lies about having seen coral reefs being harmed, forcing us to expose him.

He forces us to post pictures of ugly clowns on his threads.

He forces us to keep repeating over and over and over...

No science. No argument. Fallacies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

And he refuses to stop posting LIES in the name of SCIENCE.

Oh, dear moderator. You may still believe this was the wonderful site for free discussion that it used to be.

It is NOT. The troll is trying to take over his own threads. Please ban him now.

If we don't get rid of him soon, OTHER trolls might come here pretending to be scientists.

They, too, may refuse to allow us to control their discussions with own demands for unambiguous definitions.

They too may force us to intervene as they troll their own threads.

This place could turn into a nuthouse where rational discussion about climate science or any kind of environmental science.

You've got to ban "sealover" before he racks up 10000 posts of insults, accusations, and outrageous claims he knows we will be FORCED to respond to.

Not everyone agrees what a "troll" is, but I think we all agree "sealover" is one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:On a personal level, I find you to be a repulsive, vile, disgusting... not enough adjectives for how much I despise you.

How about contemptible, noxious, repugnant, despicable, abhorrent, revolting,
depraved? Those are some good ones.

sealover wrote:As a real world chemist, you enrage me on a different level.

I know. I enrage your religious sensitivities. I get it. I totally get it.

sealover wrote:That is your scientific specialization, correct?

I have many. You may also consider me this board's expert on the scientific method.

sealover wrote:Did you really think you could bluff ...

Nope. I gave up bluffing decades ago. I found it unnecessary. If I am honest, I don't have to keep track of all the lies I make and I never have to pivot or shift goalposts.

My policy is to strictly be honest and to stick with math, science, logic and economics. Remember, honesty is the best policy. You should give it a try for once.

sealover wrote:Have you finally figured out that I really am a chemist?

You should actually read my posts. I have said as much. You are a chemist. You are a liar. You are a warmizombie. I stick with direct observations.
RE: I wasn't planning to list my credentials.29-03-2022 04:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I wasn't planning to list my credentials.

My very first posts got multiple response with the same message.

I was accused of being a liar, pretending to have knowledge of science.

So many comments such as "Go learn some science."

So, I went ahead and mentioned that I had already spent plenty of time learning science.

No apologies. Just more extreme false accusations.

And the false accusations only become more absurd.

And I guess lignin is a carbohydrate and you just cannot reduce sulfate and everything they taught me all those years was just wrong.

But I'm pretty sure this is almost the only thread I ever post on that I did not start myself.

Looking at THIS thread, SEVEN YEARS AGO the same names that ruined the website then are still doing it. Very little traffic to this site any more. VERY little.

It seems like the goal is to prevent ANY discussion from getting started.

It seems like the goal is just to insult people who care about the future, who care about ANYTHING.

I would have been happy to be left alone while I posted my gibber babble buzzwords that nobody anywhere was ever required to read.

But I guess there isn't much else to read around here.

Maybe I should be flattered by the attention, but there is no doubt that insult has been the intention from the start.

And am I being threatened with banishment for my troll like behavior?

When was the last time anyone got banned around here?

I can't stop you from doing what you do.

What I truly hate you for is the targeting of your mean spirited attacks to the very people who want to try to make the world a better place.

Perhaps there is a special place in hell for trolls who ruin these kind of websites.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:All the posts that I DID read when I first got here called me a LIAR about it.

No, I assure you, I simply called you a liar in general.

sealover wrote:Do you ever read your own posts?

Yes, after I write them.

sealover wrote:They might offer some insight into why nobody likes to play with you.

The reason nobody likes me is that nobody likes a know-it-all. It's why I don't have any friends.


Cheers.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Who is who on Climate-debate.com:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact